Add initial governance structure #44
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Jacob Weinstock <[email protected]>
proposals/0024/GOVERNANCE.md
Outdated
| | Role | Responsibilities | Requirements | Defined by | | ||
| | ----- | ---------------- | ------------ | ------- | | ||
| | Contributor | Submit contributions | signed DCO | n/a | | ||
| | Member | issue and discussion administration, PR approval | history of activity, good judgement, and contribution in the community and the repositories, Sponsored by 2 Committers | Tinkerbell GitHub org member | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would it be possible to call out a specific set of requirements that someone should meet before they ask for sponsorship for each step?
For example, as outlined by https://github.com/kubernetes/community/blob/master/community-membership.md - X PR's to become a committer.
Alternatively, would you rather let that discussion happen in a follow-up PR?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| | Member | issue and discussion administration, PR approval | history of activity, good judgement, and contribution in the community and the repositories, Sponsored by 2 Committers | Tinkerbell GitHub org member | | |
| | Member | Issue and discussion administration, PR approval | history of activity, good judgement, and contribution in the community and the repositories, sponsored by 2 Committers | Tinkerbell GitHub org member | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@tstromberg, If possible I would like a follow-up PR.
I really do like the way the Kubernetes community has this laid out. I think we should definitely follow and make it explicit what requirements someone should meet before they ask for sponsorship for each step.
proposals/0024/GOVERNANCE.md
Outdated
| | Role | Responsibilities | Requirements | Defined by | | ||
| | ----- | ---------------- | ------------ | ------- | | ||
| | Contributor | Submit contributions | signed DCO | n/a | | ||
| | Member | issue and discussion administration, PR approval | history of activity, good judgement, and contribution in the community and the repositories, Sponsored by 2 Committers | Tinkerbell GitHub org member | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| | Member | issue and discussion administration, PR approval | history of activity, good judgement, and contribution in the community and the repositories, Sponsored by 2 Committers | Tinkerbell GitHub org member | | |
| | Member | Issue and discussion administration, PR approval | history of activity, good judgement, and contribution in the community and the repositories, sponsored by 2 Committers | Tinkerbell GitHub org member | |
proposals/0024/GOVERNANCE.md
Outdated
| | Committer | Right to make changes to the code bases | same as Member and shows leadership in the community and the repositories, sponsored by 2 Maintainers | [OWNERS] file reviewer entry | | ||
| | Maintainer | Voting privileges | same as Committer, voted in by existing Maintainers | [OWNERS] file reviewer entry | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is the difference between committer and maintainer only that maintainers get to vote on committers? I'm not sure we need to have a separation between committer and maintainer if we're seeking to come to consensus vs votes except for maintainer status votes. I'd rather just see the role of committer renamed to maintainer (to avoid the optics of a committer able to push commits w/o review/feedback for e.g.)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
consensus seeking will fall back to a vote if necessary so the voting is more than just for voting in new maintainers.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
gotcha, thanks for the update
Signed-off-by: Jacob Weinstock <[email protected]>
|
Thank you all for the approvals. I don't have permission to merge this PR. Would someone with those rights be able to merge this?? |
Description
This proposes a formal start to defining the governance structure for the Tinkerbell community.
Rendered docs:
Why is this needed
tinkerbell/tink#504
Fixes: #
How Has This Been Tested?
How are existing users impacted? What migration steps/scripts do we need?
Checklist:
I have:
View rendered proposals/0024/GOVERNANCE.md
View rendered proposals/0024/README.md